This is republished from the IPSO website. You can find the original full report on the ruling here.
Lily James complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in a series of 51 articles, published between 12 October 2020 and 2 February 2021.
The complainant said that the publication had harassed her by continuing to approach her after she had made it aware of her concerns on several occasions about what she considered to be persistent and intrusive approaches from the press and her request that these approaches should cease.
The complainant also said that the publication had breached her privacy by taking and publishing a set of photographs showing her eating dinner in a restaurant with two colleagues. She said she had been sitting towards the back of the restaurant and was not readily visible to passers-by; therefore, she said, she had a reasonable expectation of privacy, which was not overridden by any public interest.
IPSO found that Mail Online had breached Clause 3 of the Editors’ Code of Practice. An IPSO privacy notice, circulated on 13 October 2020, made a specific request for members of the press to leave the area around the complainant’s home and refrain from attempting to contact and photograph her. After this request had been made, a public interest was required under the terms of Clause 3 to justify persisting in attempts to contact and photograph the complainant.
The publication had then commissioned a journalist to look for the complainant in the vicinity of her home. The decision to direct a journalist to attend the area around the complainant’s house to “watch” for her in the immediate aftermath of the circulation of the notice broke the terms of the request to desist from attempting to contact and approach the complainant in the vicinity of her home, and the request for members of the press to disperse from the area around her home.
There was, therefore, a breach of Clause 3 in relation to the repeated approaches to the area of the complainant’s home. A separate complaint under Clause 3 about the volume of the coverage relating to the complainant was not upheld.
IPSO also found that the publication had breached Clause 2 of the Editors’ Code, by publishing a set of photographs showing the complainant seated and eating in the back of a restaurant. Clause 2 of the Editors’ Code makes clear that it is unacceptable to photograph individuals in public places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy without their consent, and the Committee concluded that the complainant did have a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time that the photographs were taken, with a 200mm camera-lens. The complainant had taken clear steps to seat herself away from public view, and the photographs had been obtained surreptitiously from outside the restaurant using professional equipment.
Mail Online had said that there was a public interest in publishing the photographs, which outweighed any reasonable expectation of privacy which the complainant might have had – because in its view they appeared to show the complainant engaged in an activity which contravened the Covid-19 guidance which was in place at the time.
However, the complainant had told Mail Online prior to publication that the photographs showed her engaged in a business meeting – which was allowed, according to guidance at the time, which Mail Online was not in a position to dispute. It did not appear to have given further consideration as to whether there was a public interest in the photographs’ publication, having been made aware of this information. There was, therefore, a breach of Clause 2.
IPSO upheld the complaints under Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 3 (Harassment) and required publication of this adjudication as a remedy.
Don’t like what you’re seeing in the press? If you see an article you’re unhappy with, you can email the press regulators at inquiries@ipso.co.uk to voice your concerns. If enough complaints are received, they will have to look into it.
Tabloid Corrections Facebook page: here.
Tabloid Corrections 